Will global warming hopefuls sign just _anything_?

Question

On a regular basis, anthropogenic global warming skeptics wonder how folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry climate change sycophants can so easily get seemingly intelligent people to buy their junk science hook, line, and sinker.

With this in mind, the comedy duo of Penn and Teller set out to see whether they could get people at an Earth Day rally called "WorldFest" to sign a petition banning water.

For those unfamiliar, this was the "6th Annual WorldFest, a solar-powered celebration of music, the environment, animals, health and social consciousness" held at Woodley Park in Encino, California, April 2006.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Some good answers so far, folks. Keep 'em coming!

Answer 1

you know, i don't let it bother me.
to be honest, you know that nothing ever gets accomplished with our two party system anyway.
and no matter how much a democrat's heart is 'bleeding' there's not one of them that can afford, or want that ridiculous tax increase that their absurd bill proposes. i thought democrats wanted to "lower" taxes.... because they supposedly represent the proletariat classes, and the common man....

of course they would ban water, thats how misinformed they are. whatever a person says who claims to be a member of their party, must be telling the truth!

just take pride in the fact that 20 years from now we can all laugh at, and ostracize the stupid tree hugers when nothing ends up happening!

Answer 2

That 'Penn & Teller' stunt reminds me of a similar stunt on "The Man Show" where Jimmy Kimbel had a line of women waiting to sign a petition to end womans sufferage.

It only proves that people are motovated by how something sounds and not by actual intelligence.

Answer 3

That is an entertaining story about Penn and Teller, however it does not really do anything to advance the discussion of the subject of Global Warming and Climate Change.

Answer 4

It’s not “meaningless garbage” Trevor, it clearly illustrates the point that most people are gullible and will believe anything they’re told.

You yourself are guilty of this. You constantly state that the results of global warming are going to be catastrophic, but can you “come up with anything even remotely credible” to support that point of view? Show me one scientist who is claiming to know what the climate will be like in 2100. All they can do is guess and even an educated guess based on science is still just a guess.

You are speculating, pure and simple. You are in fact doing exactly what was done in the video above. You are painting a dramatic, scary picture in the hope that it will alarm people enough to make them jump on the bandwagon.

Why do you never quote the IPCC’s lowest guesses of a 1.1°C rise in temperature and only 6 inches of sea level rise?

Because you’re biased, that’s why. You’re only interested in the doom and gloom stories and are completely blind to anything that suggests we may have nothing to worry about, no matter how rigorous the science.

Answer 5

I'm sorry, but sycophants lie on both sides of the party line. I'm a Republican and there are a sorry few who will even bother to research this topic after they've been told what to think by a few talking heads. It works both ways unfortunately!

Answer 6

Let me know if you ever make a coeherent argument against anthropogenic global warming, Joe U. This "question" is worthless. 'Oh ha ha some environmentalists are signing something they don't understand'. Gee, that's very enlightening.

Grow up.

Chuda, the lowest estimates are for one thing the least likely (along with the highest estimates of an 11°C warming, or 5.8°C in the IPCC report as it doesn't take feebacks into account), and are based on a scenario where we drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If you'd like to help us make that happen, maybe it will be worth discussing further.

You can't both argue against reducing greenhouse gas emissions and for the likelihood of the lower bound temperature increase. That's beyond having your cake and eating it too. That's like vaporizing your cake and then trying to eat it anyway. Nice try though.

Answer 7

Will global warming skeptics ever come up with anything even remotely credible in their case against global warming?

For once, will the skeptics at least make an attempt to question the science of global warming instead of resorting to meaningless garbage.

Just out of interest, which of these would you ban... sodium, vanadium, arsenic, mercury, magnesium or potassium - and why?

Will global warming skeptics ever come up with anything even remotely credible in their case against global warming?

For once, will the skeptics at least make an attempt to question the science of global warming instead of resorting to meaningless garbage.

Just out of interest, which of these would you ban... sodium, vanadium, arsenic, mercury, magnesium or potassium - and why?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

To Amancalledchuda...

I'm well aware that people are gullible and which is why I frequently tell people to ignore what they read in the media, on websites and hear from their friends and instead concentrate only on the reputable, first hand evidence. Unfortunately it's the reputable evidence that many skeptics dismiss claiming it to be government propaganda or the workings of scientists intent on receiving research funding. By dismissing this, their only option is to obtain information from second hand, distorted and selectively edited sources. How can they then possibly form an educated opinion?

I do sometimes state that the effects of global warming could be catastrophic but at the same time I quantify and quantify my statements by stating who will be affected, how, when, where and why and what can be done to mitigate these circumstances - in other words, I provide the full picture. Climate change has already been catastrophic, the effects of it are evident around the globe and almost no-one who has actually studied it would claim otherwise.

No scientist claims to know what the climate will be like in 2100 that is why predictions are given as averages or by using ranges. There is an overwhelming consensus that the world will be considerably warmer and if you go back through my previous answers you'll see that I often quote a figure of between 3 and 4°C rise by the year 2100. I ignore the extremes because they don't present a realistic picture and in science they're rarely correct. The same reason I don't mention the minimum figure of 1.1°C (which incidentally is 1.8°C) is the same reasons I don't mention the maximum figures of between 5.8 and 7.4°C.

I'm not interested in doom and gloom stories I'm interested in facts. If the facts paint a picture of doom and gloom then so be it, if they paint a picture of a bright and rosy future then so be it.

You allude to suggestions that we may not have anything to worry about. With all due respect I've spent many years seeking out this evidence and it isn't forthcoming. I've asked on here on many occasions for people to come forward with credible evidence to refute global warming and, not surprisingly, nothing's been forthcoming.

I discuss global warming and climate change with some very senior people and very intelligent scientists who refute climate change or certain aspects of it. Never do they bring the likes of Penn and Teller to the debating table, as all parties would laugh them out of the room.

If someone wishes to discuss climate change at a serious level I'll happily discuss it with them, if someone reduces the level to that of a comedy duo then it's not going to draw a serious or considered response from me.

Answer 8

I think you could apply this reasoning to any group of people. The majority of people who are passionate about an issue have little knowledge of it and have a hard time coming up with valid reasons for their beliefs. Just ask an evangelical why they oppose gay marriage. Everyone is on some kind of bandwagon anymore.

Answer 9

Your video is entertaining but adds nothing to the conversation over anthropogenic global warming. We know many people accept things they do not understand. We know people are gullible enough to sign things they have not fully researched. That has no effect on the validity of the theory itself.

Answer 10

It's ridiclous but people believe in it..let them pay for their carbon footprint but I don't want them pushing their beliefs on me